|
-- tips@phblend.com
PHB Mobile
| Best of the Blend |
|
Blog Posts
Special Events and Interviews
| Blend-o-licious endorsements... |
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego)."Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"
|
Support the Blend
|
|
An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.
|
Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 00:00:00 AM EDT
|
| I received plenty of emails about Hillary Clinton's triangulation over Gen. Peter Pace's assertion that gays are immoral, however she's not the only one who bobbed and weaved.
An ABC reporter asked her a direct question about whether homosexuality was immoral, and the wheels spun and this came out. "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude." Hardly a statement of support for a community that she's trying to squeeze cash out of on the DL.
This shouldn't have been a hard answer to offer up, given she's for the repeal of DADT, but there you have it. Her inability to answer the question with a flat out "no" to ABC resulted in underlings scrambling to clarify the message. (CNN): Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reins, said the New York senator "obviously" disagrees with Pace and that everyone, including the general, "has the right to be wrong, but should not inject their personal beliefs into public policy."
Then Wednesday night, the campaign released a statement from the senator herself, saying, "I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple."
"It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world," Clinton said. But let's be fair -- Barack Obama was equally weak on this matter. When asked the same question about homosexuality and immorality, suddenly the smooth-talking, crowd-pleasing Obama caught a bad case of the sHillaries when talking to Newsday:On Wednesday, Newsday repeatedly asked Obama if same-sex relationships were immoral.
"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters," said Obama, leaving Capitol Hill. "That's probably a good tradition to follow."
He turned the conversation to opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country."
Later, an Obama spokesman said the senator, in fact, disagrees with Pace. What? He had to have this leak out through a spokesperson after the horse is out of the barn? How w-e-a-k is that?! But think about it. These were calculated answers. Take a look at this insight into the homo-triangulation going on in both campaigns:Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially conservative Democrats, particularly churchgoing African-Americans, who share Pace's views. Sigh.
At least John Edwards had the cojones to directly answer the question on the first try when Wolf Blitzer asked him about it on The Situation Room: BLITZER: Let's talk about General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs. He suggested today, his own personal opinion, homosexuality, he said, was immoral. As a result, don't change the don't ask, don't tell policy.
First of all, in your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?
EDWARDS: I don't -- don't share that view. And I would go -- go further than that, Wolf. I think the don't ask, don't tell is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy.
BLITZER: Is the don't ask, don't tell policy immoral?
EDWARDS: I think the don't ask, don't tell policy is wrong. It's not working. I think what it's done, effectively, is kept us from having some of the most talented people we could have in our military. It's caused -- caused more problems than it's solved. And it ought to be changed. He also reiterated his position on marriage equality and his struggle with "crossing the bridge" to accept it. See that after the jump. |
| Pam Spaulding :: Obama and Clinton botch the 'immorality' question; Edwards answers it directly |
I see him seemingly inching closer each time it's addressed, but it's sort of like watching paint dry; you don't know if the color you slapped up on the wall is going to resemble what you really wanted. This time around he clearly sees the similarities one can draw between Pace's "excuse" (his upbringing), to Edwards's prior answers about the topic, so look at the last line of this exchange.BLITZER: I know you've wrestled, because you've said it on several occasions, with the issue of gay marriage.
Tell our viewers whether or not you've come to some sort of firm conclusion whether you support the notion of gay marriage.
EDWARDS: I don't personally support it. But I very strongly support the idea of ending discrimination, of civil unions, of having substantive rights for partners. I think those rights are, in fact, civil rights, and I also might add, I don't think it's the -- it's the role of the government, the federal government, to tell churches what -- what marriages they should bless.
BLITZER: Well, what about in civil ceremonies? What's wrong, in other words -- why are you wrestling with the issue of gay marriage?
EDWARDS: Oh, just because of my own personal life and the culture and the place in which I grew up. It's -- I feel internal conflict about it. And to be perfectly candid about it, it's an issue that I continue to struggle with.
And I -- I think I am like a lot of Americans. I don't -- I want to end discrimination in this country. I want gay and lesbian couples to be treated fairly and with respect and with -- and with dignity.
And -- and I am very troubled about the idea that any president would impose their personal cultural beliefs on the country. OK. So where does that leave us if he's elected? Interesting, and close, but no cigar. The federal DOMA question still needs to be asked -- would he call for the amendment or repeal of the law? |
|
|
